- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:30:24 -0500
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > It certainly matters. If for example if method 1 or 2 were used then > no prefix mappings would be found at all in the DOM output from a HTML > parser. So it really *does* matter how you do prefix mapping. And as > far as DOM 2 goes, I think 1 or 2 are the intuitive solutions so if > we're not using those then I *really* think it's important to specify > so. > It matters with respect to a specific implementation in a specific context. Of course. But the spec can't care about that. The spec doesn't care what environment you are implementing in, or what language you are writing that implementation in. You are absolutely correct that in a specific environment, like an HTML5 conforming user agent, I would use a different strategy than I would use if I were writing an implementation in C that operated on the raw text of a resource I retrieved over the Internet. > As previously stated, I support FPWD publication of the HTML+RDFa > document, so I hope that no further action is needed on my part. > Thanks very much for your insight and patience. We will certainly take your comments and concerns into account as we update the RDFa in HTML draft and produce errata for RDFa Syntax. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 21:31:38 UTC